The Catholic Hierarchy, Chapter 23
CHAP. XXIII. Of Obligation to a Form of Prayer.
§ 1. HAving diſcuſſed that Queſtion, whether a Church or Chriſtian is liable to impoſition of Ceremonies, it remains now to enquire, How far a Church or Chriſtian may be obliged to a Form of Prayer? A Form of Prayer is ſuch a Prayer as is premeditated and preſcribed by our ſelves or others, as to the matter and form of Petitions and Words, conſtantly and unalterably to be uſed on times and occaſions ſuiting the matter, form, and drift of the ſaid Prayer. The Queſtion here will not be, Whether a Chriſtian may not uſe a Form of Prayer; but, Whether it be lawful for a Chriſtian (as much as to uſe any indifferency) to binde himſelf, or ſuffer himſelf to be obliged to a preſcribed Form of Prayer? which Enquiry falls into two parts. 1. Whether a Chriſtian may come under an obligation, by vow or reſolution, to uſe a Set-form of Prayer, as before explained? 2. Whether he may ſuffer himſelf to come under any ſuch obligation by virtue of a Law made by any pretending Authority thereunto?
§ 2. As to the firſt, we ſhall aſſert and confirm the Negative, That it's not lawful for a Chriſtian to put himſelf under any ſuch obligation by his own Vow or Covenant, or I may adde, by his cuſtomary and conſtant abiding therein; which doth in effect amount to a Covenant-tye. If ſuch a Tye were lawful, it's either as a thing neceſſary, or indifferent; for all lawful things are ſo. 1. It's not lawful as a thing neceſſary (will be eaſily granted) becauſe none will ſay, that are Proteſtants, that a Chriſtian is neceſſarily bound to a Form of Prayer by the poſitive command of Chriſt; if they do, let it be ſhewn where Chriſt doth require any ſo to oblige himſelf, or condemn any for not doing it; or let him alleadge any Scriptural Example where any hath done it, eſpecially in the New Teſtament. I ſuppoſe we need not ſtay on that part. The ſecond part of the Disjunction, that it's not lawful for him, as an indifferency, to binde up himſelf to ſuch a Form, I prove thus: All Chriſtian indifferent actions of concern in the Worſhip of Chriſt, ought to be determined by the judgment of diſcretion, according to the Goſpel-rules of Expediency, pro hic & nunc; but to lay ones ſelf under ſuch an Obligation, would hinder him from walking by ſuch Rules, and by ſuch a Judgment; Ergo, to uſe it as an Indifferency, and to come under ſuch an Obligation, are moſt inconſiſtent; but if it be ſaid that it's expedient for him to come under ſuch an Obligation, the ratio formalis muſt be becauſe he cannot compoſe another Prayer, or pray by preſent conception: But that is not a juſtifiable reaſon; for though he cannot at preſent, he may afterwards be able ſo to do. It's juſt as if a man being lame and uſeth crutches, makes a vow never to go without them, though he ſhall be never ſo well. Or it may be another Form may be offered more ſuitable to his condition (we meeting with dayly alterations on that account;) it's not fit therefore that we ſhould be bound up always to the ſame Expreſſions, Petitions, Confeſſions, and Thankſgivings; our Neceſſities, Temptations, Sins, and Mercies received, dayly changing. Beſides, though a man have not at preſent the gift of Prayer, or aſſiſtance of the Spirit thereunto, yet he ought to ſeek and wait for it; and therefore ought not to binde himſelf up to ſuch a Form, though he may uſe it for preſent neceſſity.
§ 3. Arg. 1. It's not an indifferent thing for any man to ſtint himſelf in Religion where God hath not ſtinted him: Where Chriſt hath allotted to us a Freedom, the contrary to it is Bondage; and no Chriſtian ought to put himſelf into bondage where Chriſt hath made him free. Whereas ſtinted Forms bound to, brings a man into Bondage to Words, or theſe and thoſe Petitions, Confeſſions, &c. which though it may be ſuitable for one ſtate and ſeaſon, may not be at another, neither ſo much to Chriſt's glory, and his own edification: for Chriſt hath foreſeen a neceſſity of freedom in this kind, as to the uſe of words and ſentences in Prayer, i. e. to be regulated by Goſpel-rules of Expediency, as all Chriſtian liberty is. 1. Becauſe of the various Caſes, Occurrences, and Exigences that a Chriſtian is liable to, that it's impoſſible any one can ſuit fore-preſcribed Forms unto them; and we are enjoyned in all things to make our Requeſts known unto God. 2. Becauſe of the divers helps and aſſiſtances of the Spirit in expreſſion of our wants, Rom. 8.26. even ſometimes in Sighs and Groans, unutterable in words, and unreducible into any Forms; yea, often not knowable before we come to ask, becauſe diſcovered to us by the Spirit, ſearching our hearts while we are waiting upon God in the duty. 3. Becauſe of the divers frame of a Chriſtians own ſpirit that he is ſubject unto, ſometimes of deadneſs and deſpondency, ſometimes of enlargement (that for the moſt times thoſe are ſtrangers to, who keep up in the road of words) that the ſame words and ſentences cannot in Faith be uttered, without the ſameneſs of heart-frame, which cannot always be; which they abundantly know, who have their ſenſes exerciſed by reaſon of uſe. There are the frequent ebbings and flowings of particular Graces in a Chriſtian's heart, as of Faith, Repentance, Joy, Patience, &c. according to which he is always to proportion his expreſſions in Prayer as neer as may be, in order to his own comfort, and power againſt prevailing corruptions. Beſides, I might inſtance in the various aſſaults Satan makes upon us, his manifold wiles, as alſo the divers workings of our hearts towards or againſt corruption; as laſtly, the various and unexpected Mercies that we be daily partakers of. Examples we have many in Scripture of ſuiting Prayers in this manner, if we conſider how it was with the Saints of old, as David, Heman, Hezekiah, &c. 4. Becauſe Chriſt hath onelyonly given us general Rules in the Goſpel for particular Prayers, and hath not bound or limited us to any particular Form.
§ 4. Obj. But Chriſt hath preſcribed us a Form of Prayer, viz. that commonly called the Lord's Prayer; for he ſaith, Luke 11.2. When you pray, ſay, &c. Anſw. It's moſt abſurd to think that Chriſt bound his Diſciples to thoſe words and ſentences, and bound us up from all others; and one Scripture muſt explain another, Mat. 6.9. it's after this manner, i.e. for ſence and meaning. 2. If Luke 11.2. were to be underſtood ſtrictly, then we muſt neither adde to or diminiſh from, nor alter the Form. Hence it were unlawful to uſe the Doxologie mentioned Mat. 6. 3. If it were ſo, Chriſt's Diſciples (this Prayer being primarily directed to them upon their requeſt) ſhould never have uſed any other Prayer; but we finde not that they ever uſed the very Prayer in identity of words and ſentences. 4. In anſwer to their requeſt, it was moſt probable to be a Rule for Matter and Method; for they deſired our Saviour to teach them to pray as John taught his Diſciples. Now we finde not any preſcribed Form left by John to his, neither I ſuppoſe did our Saviour in this leave any more than a Pattern or a ſtanding Rule of Prayer to his people under the Goſpel. 5. He never uſed it himſelf, becauſe he had no ſin, need not ſay, Forgive me my ſins. 6. All expreſſions are in the plural number, ſhewing that we have onelyonly the moſt general Rules; ſecret Prayer, is to be referred to it, and particular caſes, but not here mentioned in words and ſyllables. 7. If Chriſt had bound us to this Form, then we were to uſe no other; neither might the Church preſcribe any other; neither might particular Chriſtians uſe their gifts in Prayer, nor various Forms of their own or others preſcription: which would be too groſly abſurd for any to aſſert.
§ 5. But fifthly, to infer that Chriſt (by preſcribing this Form as imitable by us, or by propounding and commending this to us as a Rule or Form) did thereby tye us up to other Forms, or gave power to the Church to binde us to Forms, or that we might binde our ſelves to other Forms, is as great an inconſequence as any in the world; for we have ſhewed there's more reaſon to judge that he left it as a Rule than Form: If he left it as a Form, it's no ground for other men to make Forms, but rather a ground to the contrary, it being his Prerogative as our Lord and Maſter. And beſides, if he hath given us a Form, and we are thereby bound to words and ſentences, we ought not to take up other Forms, and multiply thouſands of mens preſcriptions; for the ſence of Chriſt muſt needs be one of theſe two, when you pray, ſay, i. e. uſe this as the onelyonly Form of Prayer, and ſtick to it for words and ſentences, and never trouble your ſelves about any other: for if it be taken in the other ſence, it's univerſal. Take this as a ſtanding general rule of Prayer, to which all ſorts of Petitions, Deprecations, Confeſſions, Thankſgivings, are referrable. If he had authorized any to compoſe other teaching Forms, he would have ſaid, You, Apoſtles and your Succeſſors, thou Catholick Church, or National Church, or particular Congregation; do you compoſe a Form of divine Service, and I will ſet my hand to it.
§ 6. The ſecond part of the Queſtion is, Whether a Chriſtian may ſuffer himſelf to be bound to a Form of Prayer by humane Authority pretending thereunto? The Anſwer to this Enquiry will be double: 1. That whatever Authority, Eccleſiaſtical or Civil, doth pretend to ſuch an impoſing power, a Chriſtian is not to ſubject himſelf by active ſubmiſſion. 2. That no powers beneath Chriſt, can pretend juſtly to ſuch Authority. The reaſons of the firſt hath been largely enough inſiſted on before; therefore I ſhall here but touch upon them. 1. Becauſe Chriſt hath not left it indifferent to a Chriſtian to be bound in matters of his Worſhip, where he hath left him at liberty; for thereby the uſe of diſcretion, in conveniencies, is loſt. 2. All thoſe reaſons why he may not binde himſelf to a Form of Prayer, do formally prove that he is not to permit himſelf to be impoſed upon in this kind by another. 3. None but Chriſt may preſcribe Set-forms of his own Worſhip; and we are not allowed obedientially to ſubmit to any Legiſlative power in this kind, as hath been ſhewed. 4. If a Chriſtian ſuffer himſelf in this to be impoſed upon, he parts with one of the moſt eminent priviledges that he is capable of, viz. that of ſpeaking his minde to God in Prayer, and not to be bound to the Dictates and Suggeſtions of another. Who can know our own caſe in reſpect of Sins, Wants, Temptations, Mercies, &c. better than our ſelves? What is more unreaſonable, than that a Childe (though he cannot ſpeak plainly) ſhould not be ſuffered to ſpeak his mind to his Parents, as well as he can, but muſt be always preſcribed to it in the Servants or elder Brothers words and expreſſions? To deal thus with God's Children, is to go about to abandon the Spirit of Adoption, which God's Children are led by, Rom. 8.2.14, 15. which Spirit they have for this end, that they cry Abba Father, that they may ſpeak the language of the Spirit in Prayer (though their utterance be in broken and abrupt Sentences, even in ſighs and groans) which God knows the meaning of. Wherefore to put our ſelves under humane ſet Forms, is to put ourſelves into the greateſt ſpiritual Bondage of this nature.
§. 7. Secondly, No Power Eccleſiaſtical or Civil can pretend juſtly to Authority from Chriſt, to impoſe on Miniſter or Chriſtian a ſet Form of Prayer.
Argum. 1. If any can pretend to ſuch Authority, it muſt be to impoſe a ſet Form of Chriſts compoſing, or of humane compoſition: But they cannot pretend juſtly to impoſe any Prayer of Chriſts compoſing, becauſe Chriſt hath neither required nor allowed the impoſing the uſe of that which is called the Lord's Prayer by penal Laws. What corporal or pecuniary Mulcts are to be inflicted on a man that doth not uſe the very words of that Prayer, by virtue of any Law of Chriſt? Is he to be Whipped, or Fined for it by the Magiſtrate, or Excommunicated by the Church? Again, they cannot pretend to impoſe a Form of humane compoſition; for if there be no ground to impoſe a Form of Prayer of Chriſt's compoſition, by a penal Law, much leſs to impoſe one of Mans: And for any to undertake, either Church or State, to preſcribe the worſhip of Chriſt, and to enforce it by puniſhments, where Chriſt never deputed or allowed ſuch Authority, is the greateſt preſumption and inſolency in the world.
§. 8. Argum. 2. He or they that impoſe a Form of Prayer, muſt do it, becauſe it is neceſſarily or indifferently requiſite ſo to do, according to the revealed Will of Chriſt: But none can impoſe a Form of Prayer for any of theſe reaſons. Ergo. 1. None can, becauſe a Form of Prayer is neceſſarity requiſite, 1. Becauſe Chriſt hath no where required the Church or Magiſtrate to impoſe. 2. If a Setform of Prayer were abſolutely neceſſary, it could not be to any perſon or ſeaſon diſpenſed with. 3. If the neceſſity be pleaded for publick Prayers, that there ſhould be a ſet Form, there is as little neceſſity of that, can be proved from the Word of God, as of private Set-Forms. 4. If there be need of a Form for help in ſome caſes, in reſpect of preſent weakneſs of Miniſters or Chriſtians, it's no reaſon therefore it ſhould be impoſed as neceſſary to all it's pleaded for upon the account of Uniformity; but if ſome of his Majeſties Subjects wear Spectacles, becauſe of the weakneſs of their Eyes, muſt all do ſo too for Uniformity ſake, though their Eyes be never ſo good? We are to ſtrive after perfection and conformity to Chriſt therein, but are not to endeavour to conform to the weakneſſes and imperfections of his Members, and take our meaſures thereby; though we are to bear with and condeſcend to them as much as may be without ſin.
§ 9. Secondly, A Form of Prayer cannot be impoſed as indifferently requiſite to the worſhip of Chriſt; becauſe 1. If any thing be indifferently (i. e. conveniently) requiſite to the worſhip of Chriſt, it is becauſe Chriſt hath willed it indifferently requiſite: for all matters of his Worſhip take their firſt reaſon from his Will. 2. There is no reaſon from the indifferency of any thing, to impoſe it as neceſſary: But in Spiritual concerns the indifferency of any thing is a reaſon againſt the impoſition of it as neceſſary; becauſe ſuch an impoſition takes away the Formal uſe as an indifferency, 3. What Chriſt hath revealed as indifferently requiſite, he hath required a Chriſtian to uſe indifferently by the judgment of diſcretion; for every action concerning Chriſt's worſhip, is to be performed as Chriſt hath preſcribed the nature of it; neceſſary things to be done neceſſarily by us, (but not to be impoſed on us) and indifferent things indifferently. Therefore an Impoſition to enforce the uſe of indifferent things neceſſarily, and neceſſary indifferently, is unlawful, as contrary to the Will of Chriſt. 4. We have before proved, that neither Church nor State can change an Evangelical Indifferency in the Worſhip of Chriſt into a Neceſſity.
§ 10. Arg. 3. To exerciſe Dominion over Mens Faith, is unlawful: but for Church or Magiſtrate to impoſe a ſet Form of Prayer, is to exerciſe Dominion over Mens Faith, Ergo. The Major is without queſtion; and to exerciſe ſuch a Dominion, is to preſcribe what we ſhall believe and practice, or to enforce us to practice in Sacred things without believing. The Minor is true, becauſe there can be no greater exerciſe of Dominion over Faith, than in impoſing on us a Form of Prayer; for every Prayer is to be prayed in Faith, or elſe it is ſin. Now to impoſe a Form on me, (being to enforce me to that Prayer that I be not ſatisfied in) is to impoſe on my Faith, i.e. to preſcribe what I ſhould believe for practice in Prayer; or to enforce me to practice that which I do not believe; i. e. to pray that Prayer, and that conſtantly, in ſuch a part of Worſhip which I cannot do believingly.
§ 11. Arg. 4. If one Church may enforce a Form of Prayer by a Penal Law, then another may; i. e. if a National Church may enforce a Form of Prayer on all her Subordinate Churches and Members, then the Ʋniverſal viſible Church may on the National which are her Members; and if the National can puniſh the Dioceſan, or Parochial, for Non-conformity in this kind, why may not the Catholick puniſh the National for the ſame fault? i. e. for uſing a Form of Prayer not ſufficiently allowed or preſcribed by the Catholick: and if the National can interdict an inferiour Church, or Excommunicate a particular perſon, for refuſal of ſuch Obedience, why may not the Catholick deal with the National in the ſame kind? This muſt needs be conceded, but that it will be ſaid, we do not know Where to find the Catholick Church; and though the Church of Rome calls herſelf ſo, yet ſhe is not to be believed; ſhe bears witneſs of herſelf, and that witneſs is not true. I only reply, We can as eaſily, and more, find the Catholick Church, as a National; for there hath been always a Catholick Church, but there never hath been, nor will be, a National Goſpel organized Church in the world. And we may as well believe a pretending Church calling herſelf Catholick, as a pretending Church calling herſelf National; when as they are equally to be accounted as no Churches of Chriſts Ordination, as I can eaſily manifeſt when time ſhall ſerve. Well then, the National Church lyes liable to the cenſure of the Church Catholick, for uſing a diſtinct ſet Form of publick Prayers eſtabliſhed by her ſelf, whereby ſhe renders herſelf a groſs Non-Conformiſt to the Catholick Church, and an Independent in reſpect of all other National, her Form of Prayer being not Uniform with theirs. If it be ſaid the Church may compoſe and impoſe a Form of Prayer, we muſt know what Church that is, and not be deluded with a Name. Is it the Catholick Church? if ſo, why have we not a Catholick ſet Form of publick Prayers, and all National Churches bound to the uſe of it? And why, on the contrary, doth every National Church make and uſe Forms of their own? And if it be ſaid, The National is the Church, it's falſe; for it's not the Church by way of Eminency, it's not the moſt Generical Church, becauſe it's not the only Church, there are many National, and there are many other ſort of Churches, that will put in for as good a right as the National: and if every National under the Name of the Church may do this, and have a diſtinct Form of Prayer, what will become of Catholick Ʋniformity? And if the Church as Provincial or Dioceſan, what will become of National Ʋniformity? And if this power be granted to any, or all theſe ſubordinate Churches, Actum erit de Ʋniformitate Catholicâ.
§ 12. But the great plea for a Form of Prayer in the Church, is Ʋniformity, for this cannot be (ſay ſome Men) without it. Anſw. Uniformity in the Church cannot be by particular National Forms, it muſt be by a Form Catholick. 2. Can there be no Ʋniformity in the Church without a ſameneſs in Words and Sentences in prayer, there ſcarcely being two Scripture-Prayers that are altogether the ſame in Words and Sentences? Doth not Uniformity conſiſt rather in agreement in Principles, and the Analogie of Faith, ſubmiſſion to, and cloſing with the ſame King, Prieſt and Prophet, conforming to, and walking by the ſame rule of the Goſpel, an influence and guidance by the ſame Spirit? 3. If Uniformity of the Church lyeth in ſuch Externals, why is not a ſet Form of Preaching eſtabliſhed, that none ſhall uſe any other beſides ſuch Homilies? 4. If a ſet Form of ſome Prayers be neceſſary to Ʋ niformity, why not of all, as well of private as publick? for if the Church be not cloſe tyed in bond of Ʋniformity, by uniting Families and Individuals, it will break to pieces for all a publick Form. The firſt and main Union in the Church, is that which knits every purticular Member to the whole by joynts and bonds; and that there may be true Uniformity, this muſt be carefully maintained, but it's … which the great contenders for a pretended Uniformity leaſt … themſelves about.
§ 13. Another great plea for publick Forms of Prayer, is, the … neſs, ignorance, and lazineſs of many Miniſters. Rep. The … holds for ſet Forms of publick Sermons, the neceſſity of which for a time was well conſidered, at our firſt coming out of Anti… an darkneſs; and any one that could read but a Chapter, Prayer, and Homily in the Mother-Tongue, did a great deal of ſervice to God and the people. But there is not the ſame reaſon now the Church is better provided with able Labourers; or at leaſt might be, if ſhe would. 2. It is the ready way to fill the Church with this ſort of Cattle, thoſe lazy, ignorant, ſcandalous Prieſts, for Mother-Church not only to connive at them, but to countenance them, and maintain them in their pride and ſloth, and by making their Exerciſ…s for them, whilſt they be idle, debauched, and prophane, minding nothing but the profits, pleaſures, and Honours of this Life. 2. The only way (Ignavum fucos pecus a praecipibus arcent) is to baniſh theſe droans from the Church, and not to turn all the Church unto droans; and nothing ſtarves them ſooner, than to leave them to their own ſtock for Praying and Preaching; and it's beſt that their Ignorance be bewrayed, that they may be aſhamed, and get better inſtruction and exerciſe in Spiritual things, which are to be guides to other Mens Souls; or if they be not aſhamed, the people may have a full knowledge of them, and be wiſer than to entruſt their Souls in their hands. Therefore it's good that the Props be taken away, and it will ſoon appear whether ſuch pretended Church-pillars be ſound or rotten.
§ 14. What is alleadged about Miniſters abuſe of parts in publick Prayers, or want of ſufficiency, is no forcing Argument for impoſing a Form; for the abuſe of good things, is no argument againſt the uſe; we may as well ſay, Becauſe ſome will be Drunk, therefore none muſt drink Wine or Beer. 2. Inſufficient Miniſters are to be removed, or further inſtructed, if they be capable and willing, as Apollo was. 3. Are not Church-Prayers lyable alſo to abuſe, when uſed by ſottiſh Prieſts, in a formal, cuſtomary, ſlovingly, and prophane … and a hundred times more wrong done thereby to the honour of Religion, and the poor Souls of the people, than by ſome weak expreſſions and ſentences or words ſtruck out of joynt, by the laborious, faithful, and zealous Miniſters, that conſcientiouſly endeavour to uſe and improve the Talents given them, to the ſervice of Chriſt, the converſion and edification of the Souls of the people.
FINIS.
End of the text · Isaac Chauncy, The Catholic Hierarchy (1681)